Sunday, November 27, 2011

Penn State, the Church and my Ego, Part 2

Last week I posted a message about the recent allegations and reported actions (or non-actions) of officials at Penn State University. I focused on the power of institutionalization and drew parallels to the process the early Church in determining what to include in the New Testament and to the recent scandals involving the Roman Catholic Church.
I also broadened this power of institutionalization to include the subtle power of my identification with race, with nationalism/patriotism, and with economic class. I concluded that if I am already a loved/accepted spirit simply having a human experience right now, it is easier (but not easy!) to keep my True Self separate from the institution with which I trade effort for pay/image/self-definition or from limiting concepts of nationalism, political persuasion, or perceived economic standing.
Since posting that message my thoughts kept coming back to my own initial experience of the power of identification and its influence on who I think I truly am.
I grew up in a small town in West Texas about 30 miles south of Lubbock. I went to some Texas colleges and experienced a little cultural broadening. All in all, my college experiences reflected a life basically the same as high school – same attitudes, same foods, same white students, same worship of sports.
Then I went to graduate school – the Presbyterian-affiliated Princeton (NJ) Theological Seminary. Since I had to work, I took a position as a Student Assistant Minister in a downtown Trenton (NJ) Presbyterian Church on Prospect Street. I worked with the congregation's youth and began an outreach program into the mostly black, mostly impoverished local neighborhood. After Seminary I took a position as a Street Gang minister – a position that was new and uncharted. I did that for two years before it almost destroyed my marriage.
What a wake-up call!  In the late 60's, culturally, Trenton's ghettoes were about as far away from West Texas as a person could get. Working as a street minister, however, taught me several very important lessons.
A group of concerned citizens in Princeton wanted to host a fund-raiser for my ministry. Most were members of Princeton's Episcopal Church. I was very grateful. However, for the first time in my life I was the VERY conspicuous minority. These Princeton residents, most of whom were black, were medical doctors or PhDs in biology or chemistry with the World Health Organization (WHO), senior analysts or managers with the United Nations, planning consultants with UNESCO, policy wonks with the Princeton Testing Service, physicists at Einstein's Institute for Advanced Study or with Princeton University itself. From the aspect of race I was the only white person there. From the aspect of economics I was the poorest paid. From the aspect of education there was only one other person – an Indian woman –who, like me, only had a Masters Degree. In terms of race, economic status, and education I was the little, poor, undereducated white guy. Talk about a blow to my ego! What kind of world was I living in? This was definitely not the world of "Leave It To Beaver."
I learned that Christianity is not synonymous with being a good little middle class Boy Scout. If I could've told churches that was my goal – to transform these angry young men into good little citizens, I would never have had a problem raising money for my independent-of-any-single-congregation ministry. But these were not aspiring little Boy Scouts. These were 17- to 24-year old, angry, young black men. They were proud of who they were and they violently resented attempts to make them Oreo cookies – black on the outside and white on the inside.
It was in Trenton, as it rioted following Martin Luther King's murder, that I came to understand:
·      The matriarchal nature of their society: I saw firsthand the inequities built into the administration of our political and religious/moral codes that kept husbands and fathers away from their homes so mom and the kids could get the help they needed. These policies applied to governmental assistance programs, as well as to private charitable organizations. So, in effect, our moral, Christian society was forcing the break-up the family unit in order to "help" them. We kind of did the same thing to Native Americans.
·      The middle class American whiteness of my interpretation of Protestant Christianity: I had learned, for example, to share my lunch with someone less fortunate. That's what loving your neighbor as yourself meant. What do you say to a whole group that has no lunch to share? To a group that steals to pawn to get money for lunch? To a group that steals to "get back at the system?" So I said, "Why not steal cereal, powdered milk, fresh fruit? At least you can have some lunch and you can take the remainder home for your little brothers and sisters."
·      The power of acceptance and the meaning of "caring and sharing," which became our motto: During the MLK riots, there was a curfew at night. During the day I would conspicuously walk the streets so people could see I was still there – I had not retreated into the suburbs. One of my guys, named Ronnie, came running after me one day, trying to drag me back to the pool parlor where I made my headquarters. His cousin had gotten a pistol and was looking for me. Ronnie was willing to risk his life (and his familial relationships) to shield me.
All of this played a significant role in laying the groundwork for my desire for a spiritual path as opposed to the pursuit of a sense of "rightness" stemming from my religious dogma. In short, what I learned is the critical importance of always trying to use 2 little words: "…for me." I came to understand that my thoughts of "right, normal, accepted, and Christian" were influenced more by my cultural/racial/educational/economic sense of identity than by dogma or some form of religiosity. I found if I could simply add the prepositional phrase "for me" to the end of most sentences, truth would begin to penetrate all the way to my True Self.  For example, rather than saying, "The Bible is the source of truth in spiritual issues," I began saying the Bible is my source of truth in spiritual issues because that makes sense for me."
Those 2 little words began opening the door for me to accept someone else's different perception of the rightness of things – cultural or spiritual – as being just as valid as mine.
That was the beginning of my spiritual journey. That's how it all started for me.
If all I've been saying rings true for you relative to getting to your True Self, then the reality of the power of your perception becomes unmistakable. If what's real about my world is simply my perception of it, then my world really doesn't exist. If that's the case, how can one really be IN this world but not OF it? What world are we talking about? My perception or yours? That's a great question and I'll address it in next week's message.
Thanks for listening and, as always, it's okay to forward this, if you choose.
Don
#4 November, 2011

Sunday, November 20, 2011

Penn State, the Church, and the New Testament


Listening to the recent Penn State University scandal in the headlines of the news I see a familiar old pattern. Institutions take on a life of their own and will vigorously defend any perceived threats to their continued existence. Most of us understand and believe this. Even though this force of institutionalization may be subtle and subdued, it is very powerful. This certainly applies to the Church – both early and current.
Based on what's appearing in the news concerning Coach Sandusky and the alleged child molestations, head coach Joe Paterno and Penn State University's management merely sent initial reports up the chain of command  (and thus off their plate?). Little else was done, or followed up on, which is against the law. [The law states that the first actions, in cases of suspected child abuse, are to call the police and child protective services] Why would they not do that? Perhaps the coaches and PSU officials thought the scandal would embarrass or tarnish PSU's image and reputation. Bad press might follow. Alumni contributions might flag. Sports recruiting might suffer. On and on. These kinds of potential consequences are very scary to those in power who had allowed their personal identity to blur into the institution of Penn State.
I'm not simply judging Penn State from the vantage point of 20/20 hindsight, but to remind me of the power of institutionalization. To the extent I remain oblivious to the institutions and cultural mores I use to define myself is the extent I remain stuck in my ego-based perceptions and my ego's belief that it's really in control.
I spent a significant amount of time in my book explaining how the early Church, as it began to be institutionalized, focused on the documents/writings that became more and more important to include as the powers-that-be were finalizing the NT contents. What were these documents/writings? Those that supported the growing embryonic church and its focus on appropriate organizational structure, theological doctrine, male dominance, and social mores. I even concluded that the power of institutionalization is an underlying force in the New Testament that needs to be recognized and acknowledged in order to understand its content.
When we look back on the past decade or so, we see the power of institutionalization in the Roman Catholic Church as they attempted to deal with priests that horribly abused their power and influence with young boys and men. The Church's first response? Keep it from the public. Keep it hidden. Keep those contributions coming in. Hope and pray that it will magically go away. In short, protect the institution. Same with Penn State.
It is rather normal that, after a while, your security (job, salary, bonus, retirement), your identity (your house, car, neighborhood, investments, eateries, vacation destinations) and your self-worth become confused with the institution you work with/for. A threat to the institution can become a threat to your self-image (your ego's definition of who you are). Slowly, your concept of self and your institutional position have melded into one. Consequently, your initial response/reaction to a threat is to defend, deny, or minimize – for the sake of the institution. Under these circumstances, the lure of institutional identification dulls our awareness of our Spiritual Nature.
In addition to institutional identification, the same process can be documented for identification with race, with nationalism/patriotism, with economic class. For example, I'm white, I'm middle class, I'm a college graduate, I'm an American, I'm politically independent, etc. All these attributes are often used to define my die-hard concept of self to the detriment of the conscious awareness of my True Self. My Ego really believes it's in control and must do/believe certain things in order to save my soul/spirit that's somewhere inside me. For me, that's a BIG step backward on my spiritual journey.
However, if I am already a loved/accepted spirit simply having a human experience right now, it is easier (but not easy!) to keep my True Self separate from the institution from which I trade effort for pay/image/self-definition or from limiting concepts of nationalism, political persuasion, or perceived economic standing.
I really do try to keep my True Self separate from my varied social attributes. But to try it I must maintain awareness of my True spiritual nature. My acute awareness of my True Self must not be dulled by the lure of all forms of institutionalization.
Thanks for listening and, as always, it's okay to forward this, if you choose.
Don
#3 November, 2011

Tuesday, November 15, 2011

Audio CD Clip Is Now Available

I just approved the final reading of the audio CD - an abridgment of my book. I also approved the final artwork for the front and back covers of the CD. I am assured that it will be available soon at Infinity Publishing and on iTunes.

Go to my Website [ www.DonODell.com ] and click on the free 7 to 8-minute sample from the CD.

Thanks, Don O'Dell

Monday, November 14, 2011

The Difference Between being Religious and being Spiritual


The question I am most often asked – and still have a difficult time arriving at a simple, straightforward answer – is: "What is the difference between being religious and being spiritual."
Three ideas or answers generally surface as I think of my answer to that question:
  1. AA old-timers used to say, "Religion is for those who are desperately trying not to go to Hell. Spirituality is for those, like us, who have already been to Hell and don't want to go back." We'd all generally laugh.
  2. Spirituality is a state of being that comes from a truth that is acquired without the use of your five physical senses. Many call it intuitive knowing. It is that knowledge that just "pops" into you, and once it does, you know it to be true for you and you know you know it.
  3. Religion is a systematic dogma that supports your concept of rightness – concepts that are grounded in the belief that you are a distinct human being having, somewhere inside you, a soul or spirit. Spirituality is an intuitive knowing that you are already a loved and accepted spiritual being that is simply having a current human experience.
One of the principle tenets in New Thought congregations is "Thoughts are things."
If your thoughts are consistently about the "reality" of this life, then you perceive yourself as a human that has a soul/spirit. Most of us do not feel at peace. Rather, we feel threatened, angry, fearful, on-edge, wary. As I stated in last week's message, we believe in the duality of our perceived world: good/evil, right/wrong, light/darkness, God/Devil, birth/death, strong/weak, beginning/ending, love/fear, peace/anger, win/lose, plenty/scarcity, oneness/separation.
Giving voice and re-action to these kinds of thoughts simply continues to reinforce our perceived reality of this world.
If your thoughts, in a non-judgmental way, are consistently about your thoughts, then you are beginning to perceive yourself as a spirit having a human experience. You are beginning to comprehend that the reality you see and respond to is merely the reality you perceive. Change your perception and your reality changes.
Early in AA I came to understand that I cannot control people, places or things. The only thing I can control – at least sometimes – is my attitude or my outlook. If I stay focused on what I believe my true mission is then my world changes. Car batteries seem to work, bosses seem to listen. Financial issues get resolved. Relationship issues, as well, get resolved.
What is my mission? To stay sober and be in a position to help another alcoholic. Over more than 20 years of sobriety, I now find that I have broadened my mission to include those who seem to be stuck in their ego-centric worldview; those who define their perception of the world in terms of their personal dualistic view of reality – perceptions of right/wrong, good/bad, righteous/evil, God/Devil, birth/death, strong/weak, beginning/ending, love/fear, peace/anger, win/lose, plenty/scarcity.
If my "world" changes when I refocus on my mission and change my perception, then yours can, too. The Course in Miracles teaches that this change of perception is the beginning of the process of atonement – the miracle that will alter your life forever. The miracle that allows you to perceive yourself from an intuitive knowing that you are already a loved and accepted spiritual being that is simply having a current human experience. A state of spirituality rather than an acknowledgment of religious doctrine.

Monday, November 7, 2011

Who am I? I am a loved spirit currently having a human experience


Who am I? I am a loved spirit currently having a human experience
What an extraordinary concept this is! What unbelievable alterations in perception this comprehension brings!
I am not a body that has a spirit/soul!
I am already an eternal spirit lovingly created from the love of a loving God – and I am currently having a human experience!
When I began to look at the world through the eyes, not of a human, but of a loved spirit, I experience the beginning of becoming a changed person. It is experiential, not rational. It is the reality that I experienced in AA, that gave me hope, that freed me to become sober. It is the awesome power of acceptance. At my first AA meeting I absolutely knew I belonged. And I knew I knew. That simple change of perception was unbelievably exhilarating! I saw myself through the eyes of an accepted man and it changed my life. The self-loathing and ever-present feelings of being less-than, which had dominated my life, immediately disappeared while I was in those smoke-filled rooms or damp church basements. Slowly, those feelings of self-loathing also began to dissipate outside of those rooms.
Understanding that you are an eternal spirit already loved by God is the experiential knowledge of the reality of the Now – the reality of the Kingdom of God or Heaven that most of Jesus' parables were about. This Kingdom is here and now and inside of us. It is all around us, if we will but open our eyes, ears and hearts and see, hear, and understand.
In short, we are already in this Kingdom. We already are lovingly created from the love of a loving God. We are already blessed as God's sons and daughters. Since love is all there is, "sin" in the sight of the Holy Spirit is a mistake to be corrected, rather than an evil to be punished.
What more can we possibly want? So….. what’s the problem?
The problem's rather simple, actually: We just do not believe we are in this Kingdom. In fact, many of us truly believe this Kingdom doesn't really exist – or, if it does, it exists in the future after we're dead. We believe the world we perceive is all there is. We believe this world we perceive is the "real deal." In fact, the world we perceive doesn't really exist. The world you perceive will not jibe with the world I perceive. So, whose world is the real world?
We have a difficult time truly acknowledging the power of love.  We do not feel at peace – we feel threatened, angry, fearful, on-edge, wary. We believe in the duality of our perceived world: good/evil, right/wrong, light/darkness, God/Devil, birth/death, strong/weak, beginning/ending, love/fear, peace/anger, win/lose, plenty/scarcity, oneness/separation.
How do we envision a God of love in a universe we perceive seems to be filled with fear and hate? Our concepts of God are formed by and restricted by our own human experiences – including those experiences of biblical characters who were as human and fragile as you and I.
And the kicker is – All this rings very true, IF you perceive yourself as a distinct human being with a spirit/soul.
However, if you are actually an eternal, loved spirit currently having a human experience, then our adventures here are opportunities for learning and loving. We are already loved and accepted by God just as we are – a pure, innocent, holy spirit. There is no "sin," only mistakes we, as humans, can make. There is no shame, blame, or damnation because there is no judgment from God. We are His creation, He pronounced it "Good," and He doesn't make junk.
As Paul said, "Nothing can separate us from the Love of God." Nothing means nothing! Nothing means I cannot "sin" enough to separate me from His love. Nothing means Adam & Eve can't "sin" enough to separate me from the Love of God. Nothing means the theological concept of Original Sin cannot separate me from His love.
The Introduction to A Course in Miracles (ACIM) ends with the following wonderful statement:
Nothing real can be threatened.
Nothing unreal exists.
Herein lies the peace of God.
So, what is the "real" that cannot be threatened??
Love! That's what's real – and that's from God and that's etermal. [Personally, I think we've overworked the word "love," so I like "acceptance" better.]
If the world I perceive is not really real, then all I need to do is begin understanding that and begin asking the Holy Spirit for a new way of perceiving the world. Just like what happened to me in AA almost 25 years ago.
My perceptions are still changing, still maturing.
Welcome to the journey.
Thanks for listening.
Don
November 7, 2011

Tuesday, November 1, 2011

Book reveals what the Bible is – and is not!

"Now is the time for our light to shine in a manner that is clear, correct, and balanced."
Don O'Dell

"I teach Bible courses at Unity Institute. I have placed your book…on the recommended reading list for all students of these courses."
Rev. EJ Niles, Unity Village, MO.

"How The Bible Became The Bible potentially forms a bridge of understanding between Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. It can break down barriers that need not exist and shed light on the source texts that bring peace, understanding, enlightenment, and freedom."
Dr. James J. DeFrancisco, PhD, Miltha Ministries (a ministry of Aramaic Studies), Mishawaka, IN

"Mr. O'Dell has done insightful research to explain simply the pure intent of this greatly misunderstood book and how it came to be….I highly endorse and recommend [his] exciting new work."
Dr. Tom Costa, Minister Emeritus and founder, Palm Desert, CA Church of Religious Science and author, Life: You Wanna Make Something of It?

"Donald O'Dell has woven an interesting tapestry of research, scholarship, and personal experience into this examination of the authenticity of biblical entries. While the references O'Dell uses are reliable and thorough, the beauty of this book is its readability.... This examination is really an open-minded exploration of whether morality is inextricably tied to biblical tenets that came directly from the the font of God."
New Age Retailer magazine, Gift 2007 Issue


Now, you may be wondering, “Why would I want to read a book about the Bible?” The book will help you think through the question: What do I believe about the Bible? In fact readers have commented that between Hezbollah, Islamic terrorists, conservative nationalistic Israelis, and fundamentalist Christians – all using their scriptures to proclaim themselves to be right – to understand what the Bible is – and isn't! – is a very relevant issue right now. Additionally, in light of the Discovery Channel's recent TV special on the Tomb of Jesus, the book's treatment (pp 141-143) of the empty grave is quite eye-opening.

If you think that God spiritually faxed the Bible to mankind and that’s what you’re reading when you pick up any of the many “versions” available around the world, you won’t like this book written by Donald L. O’Dell. HOW THE BIBLE BECAME THE BIBLE is a thoughtful, well-documented work written to invite the reader to discover the real story of how the books of the Bible were selected, who the realauthors were, and what their messages communicated. The reader will understand what the Bible is and – more importantly – what it isn’t.

O’Dell received his Master of Divinity from Princeton Theological Seminary, Princeton, NJ after graduating high honors (history and psychology) from North Texas State University (now UNT) in Denton, TX.  After serving as a Presbyterian minister for some time he joined the business world for the remainder of his career. He is now semi-retired and lives in Florida.

The underlying message of the book is a call for honest spirituality rather than guilt-based religiosity based on Israel’s tribal concepts of purification and sacrifice. In short, that’s what the book is really all about – telling the story of how the religious and the spiritual have been at odds throughout the history of Bible-times, as well as in the selection of materials to include and exclude in the Bible. As O’Dell puts it, “The more people become aware of this story the more it will help offer an alternative to the growing religious polarization we currently see in our society.”

Like most powerful tools, the Bible can be used or misused. The Bible is a guide, not an instruction manual. It records men and women that struggled to put their very spiritual experiences into words and images that made sense to them in their times and places. “We need to understand that. It will help enable us to put our spiritual experiences in words that make sense to us in our time and place,” O’Dell states.

According to author O’Dell, “On matters of belief, we are seeing more books, radio or TV talk shows, letters to newspapers or magazine articles that seem to be saying, regardless of the topic, ‘I’m right!’ or ‘It’s my way or the highway!’ Every issue is a very big deal. Every issue is cast in terms of black or white, right or wrong, good or bad. The Bible is either wholly accurate in every way or it isn’t. There seems to be no middle. That’s an indication people are misreading the Bible.

HOW THE BIBLE BECAME THE BIBLE is a thoroughly researched book with impressive reviews.  Whether you are interested in discovering the truth behind the Bible or its meaning for you personally, this is one book you shouldn’t miss.

For more information on the book or the author, Donald O’Dell, contact Infinity Publishing: 1-877-BUY-BOOK (289-2665) or www.buybooksontheweb.com



# # #


Blog maintained by EzWebManifesting.com

Review: New Age Retailer

Published (Edited) Review: New Age Retailer, Gift 2007 Issue, 08/2007



Donald L. O’Dell
$19.95 QP, 9780741429933, 
305 pages, 5.5" x 8.25", Infinity Publishing, 
877/289-2665, www.buybooksontheweb.com,
or the author's website: www.DonODell.com.

"Donald O’Dell has woven an interesting tapestry of research, scholarship, and personal experience into this examination of the authenticity of biblical entries. While the references O’Dell uses are reliable and thorough, the beauty of this book is its readability. Many exploratory books that lean heavily on academic biblical research can be so dense it takes a person wholly devoted to the subject—or making their salary from it—to decipher the author’s writing style.

Divided into two parts, one for the Old and one for the New Testament, there are cumulatively 12 chapters, two pages of bibliography, and three pages each of index and footnotes. O’Dell provides a historical context for the chapters and verses along with some strong doses of common sense about what social and political factors may have contributed to the characters, personalities, and their role in recording these powerfully consequential stories that have shaped Western, if not world, history.

This examination is really an open-minded exploration of whether morality is inextricably tied to biblical tenets that came directly from the font of God. As we gradually learn, issues of morality were well illuminated for many hundreds of years before such principles landed in either Testament. What we do come to understand is that many of the exquisitely complex moral questions of the right and wrong of human action have been seductively intertwined into the Bible so as to create a seemingly authoritative, absolute, and final comment on what ought to and should be."
Thomas Peter von Bahr, Pacific NorthWest Group, 
Lopez Island, Wash.


Text of the Complete Review

Donald O’Dell has woven an interesting tapestry of research, scholarship, and personal experience into this examination of the authenticity of biblical entries. While there are people that have developed beliefs that every word is the literal utterance of God (or Jesus as God), no one who understands centuries of transcription of text under conditions not often very favorable to the scribes will object to the common sense employed by the author in putting together this work.
While the references O’Dell uses are reliable and thorough, the beauty of this book is its readability. Many exploratory books that lean heavily on academic biblical research can be so dense it takes a person wholly devoted to the subject—or making their salary from it—to decipher the author’s writing style. This is almost akin to a book within a book. "How the Bible became the Bible" is more a handbook and a guide than an attempt at adding to the compendium of collected biblical scholarship. And a glance at the Table of Contents makes this very clear, indeed. Divided into two parts, one for the Old and one for the New Testament, there are cumulatively 12 chapters, two pages of bibliography, and three pages each of index and footnotes. What O'Dell is trying to do is to provide an historical context for the chapters and verses along with some strong doses of common sense about what social and political factors may have contributed to the characters, personalities, and their role in recording these powerfully consequential stories that have shaped Western, if not World history.
This highly readable book takes a conversational tone when, for instance, in Chapter 6 (The Time of Jesus), the author gently transitions us from the Old to the New Testament. The tenor focuses on the impact of Roman rule and the reactions to it and in the populace. Instead of dogmatic repetition of the chapter and verse based solely on moral directives from "above," we have "…the Romans did bring law and order…to Judea and Palestine…and roads were safer." This provides a context for understanding the times and conditions into which Jesus Christ was born and lived (assuming both). O'Dell goes on to provide yet more insight: "Homosexuality had been feared by the Israelites – not so much because it was a sin against God, but because it was a threat to their idea of eternal life through the ancestry of their loins." Likewise, divorce, the Roman Law, was frowned on because it could affect continuity (p. 107-8). The politics of sexual and marital and familial push-pull; how contemporary! Some things do not change…except that in 2007 we are stuck with irreconcilable head-butting without many on either side of these and other moral issues understanding the origins of the practices being contested. Often, out of ignorance, claims are made that "the word of God is that such-and-such behavior is forbidden" when in fact it was the pragmatic need to promote and continue the nuclear family structure. This work is full of such powerful clarifications.
One of the author's most important chapters is Twelve. The author makes five points, which really underpin his sensitivity and add elements of sane discourse to what often is emotionally charged. O'Dell does not really dispute that Jesus lived, so that is one battle that does not get fought is this summary. A person with good sense and an open mind will: 1) focus on the difference between general guidelines for moral living and literal instruction; 2) readers need to recognize and then acknowledge the danger of "bibliolatry" (idealizing and literalizing the Bible); 3) understanding how institutionalization can attract linear and closed-minded thinking; 4) understanding and analyzing how powerful the fear engendered by a god of retribution can be when promoted as that force is in BOTH Testaments; and 5) acknowledging who Jesus was and was not. These principles are what provide the reader with a sense of what the author is really up to; what he is trying to convey about the message of this powerful "Good Book."
It would be a mistake to just read the book for the History of the Jews in the first five chapters of the Old Testament just as much as it would be a waste of rational thought to rely on Jane Austen-like descriptions of the societies of the Mediterranean found in the New. This examination is really an open-minded exploration of whether morality is inextricably tied to biblical tenets that came directly from the font of God. As we gradually learn (Chapter 10, page 202), issues of morality were well illuminated for many hundreds of years before such principles landed in either Testament. They travel back through Roman times, even past the second half of the Millennium before Christ when the great Greek Philosophers were writing their Dialogues. What we do come to understand is that many of the exquisitely complex moral questions of the right and wrong of human action have been seductively intertwined into the Bible so as to create a seemingly authoritative, absolute, and final comment on what ought and should be. In fact, like a travel guide, the Bible is an aide to moral living, not THE unequivocal last word.
Finally, a short note about the author's personal annotations in several places, including his Afterword, which contains biographical information. Donald L. O'Dell was at one time an alcoholic. He has grown enormously since those days when his life was out of control. His insights about tolerance, biblical and otherwise, come with great authority: that of personal travails. He has earned this understanding and he seeks to share it with others. While strict biblical constructionists and Pentecostals may want absolute answers, which the author cannot give because of his open, inquiring mind, most readers will benefit from his clear writing style and will take away much from this work. Stock this in Religion, Ancient History, and Philosophy.
REVIEWED: March 20, 2007; Thomas Peter von Bahr, Pacific NorthWest Group, Lopez Island, Washington, 98261

The Florida Writers Association (www.floridawriters.net) awarded this book, How the Bible became the Bible, the winner in the non-fiction category of the 2006 Royal Palm Literary Award contest. The announcement was made November 11, during the FWA 2006 Annual Conference in Orlando, FL.
 
This award represents recognition from professional writers. FWA encompasses all of Florida and is composed of professional and aspiring writers representing all genres and including novelists, poets, historians, journalists, educators, article-writers, editors, etc.